Will Southwest Washington State Opt For A Fresh Start? Or More Of The Same Tired Special Interests Politics?

More of the same-- Heck and Baird, Inc.

Brian Baird was one of the 39 disgruntled, rogue Democrats who voted against healthcare reform last November, along with a gaggle of mostly reactionary Blue Dogs-- from John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA) and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (Blue Dog-SD) to Parker Griffith (Blue Dog, now R-AL) and Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC). Baird was the only Washington Democrat to cross the aisle and join John Boehner and Eric Cantor in trying to defeat healthcare reform.

State Senator Craig Pridemore, the Blue America endorsed candidate for Baird's House seat isn't challenging Baird to a primary battle. Thankfully Baird is retiring from politics-- although not before endorsing a multimillionaire corporate lackey to take his place, Denny Heck. All the lobbyists, special interests and business-as-usual shills are backing Heck. Democratic grassroots and netroots activists in WA-03 are what's propelling Craig's campaign.

The video below explains Blue America's enthusiasm for Craig a lot better than I could in a few hyperbolic words. Please take a look at it as he explains why he supports a clearly flawed healthcare reform bill and how clearly he sees how corporate money is behind almost everything that's wrong Inisde-the-Beltway.

“As I’ve traveled around Washington’s 3rd Congressional District, one of the things that’s clear is that our citizens and our businesses are hurting. We need to step up and help our small businesses and workers succeed by implementing reforms to reduce their health care costs. The problem right now is that we have a health care system dominated by insurance and pharmaceutical companies and Wall Street.
 
“I believe we deserve a public option. It is essential that we encourage competition in the health care market place, and the only way to do that is to hold the special interests in Washington, D.C. accountable to the struggling families across our nation. I also know that the bill before us means progress. It will provide coverage to millions of uninsured Americans and end the inhumane practice of cutting off those with pre-existing conditions.
 
“What’s clear is that my opponent, Denny Heck, is standing on the sidelines when it comes to this issue.  He wants to wait it out, see what happens, and then decide where he stands. Make no mistake, I support health care reform and I support a public option and when elected, will step up and do everything I can to lower costs and check the power of the special interests in Washington, D.C.”

What hacks like Baird and Heck don't want to understand is that less privileged, more exposed families than their own, right in southwest Washington very much need the reforms offered in the healthcare bill neither of them is supporting. Yesterday the House Energy and Commerce Committee put out a report that shows how the bill would impact Baird's constituents:

* Improve coverage for 478,000 residents with health insurance.

* Give tax credits and other assistance to up to 176,000 families and 16,800 small businesses to help them afford coverage.

* Improve Medicare for 116,000 beneficiaries, including closing the donut hole.

* Extend coverage to 53,500 uninsured residents.

* Guarantee that 12,500 residents with pre-existing conditions can obtain coverage.

* Protect 1,500 families from bankruptcy due to unaffordable health care costs.

* Allow 61,000 young adults to obtain coverage on their parents’ insurance plans.

* Provide millions of dollars in new funding for 18 community health centers.

* Reduce the cost of uncompensated care for hospitals and other health care providers by $21 million annually.

Craig has a long record of courageous, principled and progressive public service. He's a good investment for progressives! Please watch the video and consider making a contribution to his campaign.

A Philosophy Of Governance That Pits Hard Core Conservatives Against Humanity

Coastal Florida-- but Mica, Stearns & Miller put their dangerous ideology ahead of the interests of their own endangered constituents

Brian Baird (D-WA) is retiring from Congress and will hopefully be replaced by a more progressive Democrat, state Sen. Craig Pridemore. I've had my disagreements with Baird-- plenty of them-- but he's one of the only members of Congress willing to be even remotely evenhanded towards the Palestinians, so I always have a grudging admiration for him when he acts badly on other matters. Yesterday an important but obscure bill of his passed, 251-103-- H.R. 3650, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act. There were 39 co-sponsors, spread out on both sides of the aisle.

Baird, a member of the Congressional Boating Caucus as well as the Coastal Caucus, is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Science and Technology Committee, and he also serves on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee and the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. It all seemed to come together yesterday when he managed to pass H.R. 3650, which is meant to establish a National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program, to develop and coordinate a comprehensive and integrated strategy to address harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, and to provide for the development and implementation of comprehensive regional action plans to reduce harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. "This bill," said Baird, "will reauthorize a program that has funded research to advance our understanding and our ability to detect, assess, predict and control these harmful algal bloom and hypoxia events. Since the last reauthorization there has been an increase in the number, frequency and type of algal blooms and hypoxic events, affecting more of our coastlines and inland waters."

According to WaterWorld:

Harmful algal blooms are a rapid overproduction of algal cells that produce toxins and occur in both salt and freshwater. People and animals are exposed to the toxins when they drink or swim in the contaminated water or consume seafood that has ingested these toxins. The toxins cannot be removed or neutralized through the traditional water treatment methods, like filtering, boiling, or chemical treatments.

In addition to releasing toxins, the blooms can block sunlight in water and use up the available oxygen in the water, causing a severe oxygen depletion. The oxygen depletion, called hypoxia, stresses or suffocates marine animals and plants. Environmental changes in water quality, temperature, and sunlight or an increase in nutrients in the water can cause blooms to increase dramatically.

Harmful algal blooms also have a negative financial impact on a region, if beaches are closed and fishing is suspended. Harmful algal blooms and hypoxia cost the U.S. seafood and tourism industries approximately $82 million annually, according to a conservative estimate from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The bill will give local communities the tools and best practices to understand and respond to harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. It will assist in regional, state, tribal, and local efforts to develop and implement appropriate marine and freshwater harmful algal bloom and hypoxia response plans, strategies, and tools. It will also provide resources for and assist in the training of local water and coastal resource managers in the methods and technologies for monitoring, controlling, mitigating, and responding to the effects of marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia events. The state and regional participation is completely voluntary. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) determined that the bill does not impose any cost on state, local, or tribal governments.

The bill has been endorsed by Environmental Defense Fund, Surfrider Foundation, Ocean Champions, and PURRE (People United to Restore our Rivers and Estuaries).

Olympia Snowe (R-ME) is carrying the same bill in the Senate, and it's already passed the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. So who's against it-- and why? Red Tide lovers?

Well, hard-core GOP obstructionists who oppose government action to make society a better place pretty much oppose everything, and 98 of them voted against the bill yesterday. Most of them represent landlocked districts, and most of them are just against any positive action-- you know, Michele Bachmann, Virginia Foxx, Patrick McHenry, Eric Cantor, David Dreier, Pete Sessions, Mean Jean Schmidt, all the creeps and imbeciles from Texas and Georgia, of course, Scott Garrett, Steve King and (shockingly, considering his Long Island district) Peter King.

And the five Democrats who voted "no"? See if you can detect a pattern. Jason Altmire, Dan Boren, Bobby Bright, Ann Kirkpatrick, Bill Owens-- five of the most spineless and habitually conservative Democrats, all from inland districts, all eager to go run to the Chamber of Commerce types and say, "See I'm really one of you." And they are.

It made me think of a speech then-candidate Bill Clinton gave at Georgetown University on October 23, 1991, the New Covenant speech. It was one that turned the tide in his favor and help make him president. Let me quote just a llittle so you can compare it with how the members of Congress who voted "no" yesterday define their role in politics:

The very fiber of our nation is breaking down: Families are coming apart, kids are dropping out of school, drugs and crime dominate our streets.

And our leaders here in Washington aren't doing much about it. The political system we have now rotates between being the butt of jokes and the object of absolute scorn.

Frustration produces calls for term limits from voters who don't even think they have the power to vote incumbents out, and resentment produces votes for David Duke, not just from racists, but from voters so desperate for change they will support the most anti-establishment message, even if it's delivered by an ex-Klansman who admits it was inspired by Adolf Hitler.

We've got to rebuild our political life before the demagogues and the racists, and those who pander to the worst in us, bring this country down.

People once looked at the president and the Congress to bring us together, to solve problems, to make progress. Now, in the face of massive challenges, our government stands discredited, our people are disillusioned. There's a hole in our politics where our sense of common purpose used to be.

The Reagan-Bush years have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interest over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family.

The 1980s ushered in a gilded age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect.

S&L crooks stole billions of dollars in other people's money. Pentagon consultants and HUD contractors stole from the taxpayers.

Many big corporate executives raised their own salaries even when their companies were losing money and their workers were being put into the unemployment lines.

Middle-class families worked longer hours for less money and spent more on health care and housing, and education and taxes.

Poverty rose. Many inner-city streets were taken over by crime and drugs, welfare and despair. Family responsibility became an oxymoron for many deadbeat fathers who were more likely to make their car payments than to pay their child support.

And government, which should have been setting an example, was even worse. Congress raised its pay and guarded its perks while most Americans were working harder for less money.

Two Republican presidents elected on a promise of fiscal responsibility advanced budget proposals that more than tripled our national debt.

Congress went along with that, too. Taxes were lowered on the wealthiest people whose incomes were rising, and raised on middle class families as their incomes fell.

...To turn America around, we've got to have a new approach, founded on our most sacred principles as a nation, with a vision for the future. We need a new covenant, a solemn agreement between the people and their government to provide opportunity for everybody, inspire responsibility throughout our society and restore a sense of community to our great nation. A new covenant to take government back from the powerful interests and the bureaucracy and give it back to the ordinary people of our country.

The Political Disloyalty Effect

This morning CNN trotted out retiring ConservaDem Brian Baird (D-WA), one of Congress' most detestable assholes, to brag about how he wants to take down the Democratic Party with him when he goes. He seems as eager as ever to vote against healthcare reform. "The House bill is better than the status quo; the Senate bill is better than that [...but] I don't think this bill is what I would like to see us do if I ran the universe." Much to his chagrin, he doesn't. Instead he runs a subcommittee of the Science and Technology Committee and he's a big macher on the Congressional Ski and Snowboard Caucus and the Congressional Mental Health Caucus.

Unless you just stumbled upon DWT today for the first time, you probably know how we feel about Jim DeMint, the John C. Calhoun of our day, around here. As treacherous and reactionary as DeMint is-- and as poisonous as his conservative ideology is for American working families-- he isn't a moron when it comes to political calculations. When he declared that if the GOP could defeat Obama on healthcare reform it would "break him" and it would be his Waterloo, he knew exactly what he was saying and what he was starting-- and it wasn't an Abba revival.

Democratic Party pollster Stanley Greenberg took to the pages of The New Republic last month to examine the similarities-- and the differences-- shaping up between the 2010 election cycle and the 1994 election cycle. He offers a prescription on how to avoid a repeat of 1994, something Ben Goddard hearkened back to in a thought-piece on the teabaggers for The Hill this week.

Before we look at Greenberg's and Goddard's analysis, let me remind you that-- aside from my day of actual teabagging-- I spend a lot of time talking with candidates running for office-- and that includes Tea Party candidates. Although Katherine Jenerette in South Carolina may be my favorite, besides going back and for with her online yesterday, I spent some time on the phone with Chris Riggs, the Tea Party fave running against Republican corporate whore Ken Calvert just south of where I live. I even introduced the two of them so they could network against the GOP establishment they are both running against.

Earlier in the day I had left a comment on Katherine's behalf (and at her request) on some right wing South Carolina blog and she had some mixed feelings about me comparing her to South Carolina heroes John Calhoun and Strom Thurmond, pointing out that I probably don't have their pictures on my wall while calling them "political giants."

My philosophy is that if I get elected, I won't just be representing the right, left or either extreme or the people in the middle - I represent them all.
 
Maybe the Army is responsible for my perspective. I joined when I was 19 and I never asked the soldiers that I went with the Persian Gulf War with whether they were Democrats or Republicans and they never asked me.
 
My duty was to those serving with me - and that's how I see going to Congress. My duty is to the people of my district.
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm not some moderate or liberal and most people view my issues as being right-winged conservative. But, I view myself as a Constitutionalist. But I will not forget that I serve the people of my district and that includes the richest businessmen in the district and it includes single-moms with kids who are trying to get them through school to educate them and the ordinary people like me who go to work and pay their taxes and wished their government wasn't so damn big. (I've always thought that the bigger the government, the smaller the individual - that one small voice is important because when we lose that, we lose what the American dream is all about).
 
I'm just wanting to find solutions to our problems which is nothing new. I think we can do it. No, I know we can do it.

Katherine may seem hopelessly naive, but she's no dummy. She also has more charisma than the whole Republican Party machine that's trying to tear her down. Riggs is also a young, family-oriented outsider candidate, another well-meaning but severely misguided idealist buying into the right-wing propaganda that's rotted the minds of so many millions of Americans. Now, back to Goddard, who, like Greenberg, thinks the Republican Party is all prepared to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory-- with the help of teabaggers like Katherine and Chris. He feels certain the GOP won't be able to present themselves in a way that is even remotely attractive to voters and that no matter how disappointed voters are with Obama and the Democrats, memories are not short enough for people to forget who got us into the messes we're in and how the Republicans have obstructed Obama's every move to fix the problems they took 8 years to create.

The ranting about President Barack Obama’s secret socialist agenda and the rise of spokesmen like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck-- obvious ideologues appealing to a narrow segment of the party-- have served to define the party as right-wing. What started as a tax protest, the Tea Party, seems to be evolving into a legitimate movement within the party, with well-organized and -financed candidates challenging mainstream Republicans in primary races around the country.

...[In 1994 Greenberg] convened a meeting of top political scientists to divine what the diverging lines of support for Republicans and Democrats meant. Their conclusion was a loss of 15 to 18 seats-- a dire scenario, but nothing quite like what actually happened, which was a loss of 54 House seats and eight in the Senate. At the time, the president’s approval rating held at 50 percent. Following the disastrous defeat of his crime bill by his own party in the House, his positive numbers had fallen to 39 percent.

Are we in the same situation today? Greenberg thinks not. “Republicans have remained amazingly unredeemed,” he says. Unlike Gingrich and Dole, who gained stature with every battle, Republicans today look like a cult.

Ken Feltman surprisingly shares this view, comparing where the party is today to the Whigs in the 1850s. More recently, he recalls the “loyalty test” votes of Tom DeLay that affirmed leadership’s positions without regard for the needs of moderate constituents. He cites Rep. Jack Quinn (R-N.Y.) resigning because DeLay had no idea what it took for a Republican to win in Buffalo. Moderates need not apply.

In reading Feltman’s newsletter,  Radnor Reports, I was reminded of a paper I wrote in college on how F. Clifton White and his cohorts seized control of the Republican Party from the “Rockefeller Republicans” and nominated Barry Goldwater for president. Radnor believes the pattern will repeat. The Tea Partiers will take over more party positions now held by the old guard. “Some of those Tea Partiers will be kooky, others will be single-issue ideologues. A few will be anti-immigrant, a smattering will be paranoid. Others will be very like the Republicans they beat.”

Whether the movement will be a short-lived adjustment in GOP philosophy or a wholesale shifting of the political foundation in this country will take some time to sort out. But the message from two very political observers from opposite ends of the spectrum is that change is coming. And it may not be the change many suspect.

If Obama is able to make the case that he and the Democrats are making a better life for real people while Republicans simply want to stop any change that affects the status quo, they may be able to weave a positive economic narrative. Communicating that message just might trigger the same kind of realignment that eventually created the Republican Party some 160 years ago.

Will right-wing idealists like Jenerette and Riggs be able to save the Democrats from the perfidy of conservative Democrats like Baird who are disappointed they don't run the universe (or even a committee)? Stay tuned-- and take a look at the place where the non-racist obsessed teabaggers actually start blending in with normal Americans:

Congress' First Vote Gives A Hint As To How The Democrats Will Splinter

Actually the first vote was for the new Speaker and, on pain of political death, all Democrats voted for Pelosi and all Republicans voted for Boehner. Even the most reactionary, right-wing Know Nothing Democrats, like Heath Shuler (NC), who had once threatened to vote against Pelosi, and pushy Pelosi-haters like ambitious New York Blue Dog Kirsten Gillibrand toed the party line on this one. But after that perfunctory organizational vote came a real barn burner, Pelosi's plan to change the rules. Again, it was Democrats for and Republicans against, as expected. And, indeed every single Republican voted no. But not every Democrat did.

Of the 248 Democrats voting-- 7 were away-- 6 voted with the Republicans. Who they are should help give us a preview about where the opposition to the Democratic Party agenda for the coming session will come from. Half the opposition came from right-wing Blue Dog scum and half came from principled representatives of American working families. Progressive members Ed Pastor (D-AZ), Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) wound up joining right-leaning members Brian Baird (WA), Walt Minnick (ID) and Mike Michaud (ME).

Minnick was just elected, as a self-professed conservative, in one of the most reactionary districts in the entire country (PVI: R+18) and he is bound to vote with the Republicans at every opportunity. He's nearly worthless when it comes to the issues that separate Democrats from fascists and is going to be GOP target #1 in 2010 no matter how often he votes with them. Democrats will waste hundreds of thousands of dollars-- if not millions-- defending the seat of a guy likely to vote with the GOP half the time. Michaud is a Blue Dog and he's already trumpeting how he stood up against the Big Bad Democrats: Michaud Chooses Principle over Party Loyalty, Votes Against Democratic Rules Package.

“The first vote of the new Congress asked members to support a package that includes a major provision that does not live up to the fiscal responsibility that the American people demand,” said Michaud.  “All across my district families are being asked to tighten their belts, cut spending, and go without. It’s time that Congress learned to do the same.

“We have seen Medicare’s costs steadily rise,” said Michaud.  “As a result, an increasingly larger share of this program [Medicare] is being funded by general government revenue. Instead of responsibly dealing with this funding problem and ensuring the long-term solvency of Medicare, this issue was swept under the rug.  At the end of the day, as this new Congress gets underway, new spending must grow our economy and put Americans back to work.  It must also be responsible.  Congress must once again return to following a budget, just like every Maine family must.”

Brian Baird is a member of the right-wing New Democrat Coalition (NDC), an outfit that overlaps the Blue Dogs and is also more likely to support corporate priorities than working families. Baird. considered a "moderate," gained national recognition as a collaborator with Bush on escalating the war against Iraq.

Pelosi's going to have to work extra hard to hold the fractious edges of the House Democratic caucus together. It will be interesting to see if John Larson (D-CT) will be as persuasive as Emanuel was in his new role as Chairman of the Caucus.

DEMOCRATS PUSH THROUGH WAR FUNDING BILL WITH WEAK STRINGS ATTACHED THEY WILL ABANDON AS SOON AS BUSH VETOES THE BILL

The latest bill funding Bush's catastrophic war in Iraq passed 218-203. Generally speaking, Democrats voted for it and Republicans voted against it. The Democratic leadership was pushing for it because it makes some moves in the direction of troop withdrawal. But even those weak moves were enough to stir controversy. 15 Democrats voted with the Republicans (while 4 North Carolina anti-war Republican Walter Jones plus 3 pathetic opportunist rubber stamps-- Phil English, James Walsh and Chris Shays-- fearlful that voters will toss them out next year, abandoned Bush and voted with the Democrats).

Most of the Democrats who voted with the GOP on this were the regular war-mongering Cheney-supporters like John Barrow (GA), Jim Marshall (GA), Dan Boren (OK), Jim Cooper (TN), Nick Lampson (TX), Gene Taylor (MS), John Tanner (TN), Vic Snyder (AR), Jim Matheson (UT) and Brian Baird (WA). But several progressive Democrats also voted against the leadership position because they are tired of playing games and felt-- rightly so-- that the bill is just a charade and a sop to Americans who want real peace. John Lewis (GA) loudly abstained and no votes were registered from ant-war heroes Pete Stark (CA), Dennis Kucinich (OH) and Tom Allen (ME).

As you know, Blue America has been working to help Tom Allen challenge notorious Bush Regime rubber stamp Susan Collins for Maine's senate seat. Allen sent us his rationale today for opposing the bill:

“I opposed this war from the beginning and have consistently worked to set a deadline to bring our troops home. I voted against this bill because it does not set a binding deadline for safe, logical withdrawal of our troops. This legislation carries the ‘change the mission’ view that leaves our troops in Iraq indefinitely, merely re-labels their jobs and costs billions and billions of dollars. That isn’t the change in policy that we need.”

The polar opposite came from Bush-supporter Brian Baird (D-WA) who has drunk the koolaid and is now a die-hard war hawk. CSPAN captured him speech making the Democratic version of Cheney's talking points:

"My colleagues, as someone who opposed the invasion of Iraq and believes it was one of the most egregious mistakes in the history of this country, I rise today to implore you to not make a mistake today by demanding that we begin an immediate withdrawal. The facts on the ground are the situation is improving in Iraq. Courageous Americans have given their lives and the time away from their families to make that happen. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died in a conflict that we created. We have a chance now to try to improve the situation. Progress is being made, do not let anyone today say it is not. Violence is down, political leaders are reaching out across the aisle, Shias are meeting with Sunnis, Sunnis are meeting with Shias. They need more time to succeed, and an insecure situation will undermine the progress, not further it. We need to have more time to debate this resolution today. We need to take the good parts of it, keep those in, but abandon this requirement for an immediate withdrawal. There is a big difference between one year, which this measure says we have to be out in, or a ten year horizon. We should find the nuanced ground that we can agree on."

To summarize Cheney's Baird's position:

* "Courageous Americans have given their lives" so we must make more courageous Americans give their lives too. This was a rationale used for endless war starting in ancient times and has been used in every war since Athens invaded Sicily in 414 BC as part of the Peloponnesian Wars, an invasion that has all the hallmarks of Bush's Iraq disaster.
* "Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died in a conflict that we created" so let's double down and see how close we can get to a million before we bankrupt ourselves completely.
* "Progress is being made" is the same calumny that was used to prolong, tragically and pointlessly the War in Vietnam (although them Baird would have been saying "There is light at the end of the tunnel."
* "Violence is down," another accountant's lie perpetrated by the Bush Regime and bought by hacks like Baird, Barrow and Boren but few others.
* "Political leaders are reaching out across the aisle." Baird must be referring to al-Mailiki hiring CIA double agent/Iranian spy Ahmad Chalabi, another sure bet that further disasters await for all concerned.
* "We need to have more time," basically what all war-mongers who are losing always say. Always.

WHY ARE PRIMARIES MUY IMPORTANTE?

MoveOn is considering doing what Blue America and OpenLeft are already doing-- encouraging primaries against putative Democrats who get into office and vote against crucial Democratic values and principles. Like OpenLeft, MoveOn is especially focusing on Democrats who support the Bush-Cheney war agenda. (Blue America considers a number of factors, which is why, for example, Donna Edwards race against the corrupt reactionary Al Wynn is on our list of targets.)

According to an article in today's Congressional Quarterly MoveOn is polling its members to see how they feel about going after especially bad DINOs (Democrats in Name Only). MoveOn has already done very effective TV advertising in southwestern Washington state after Brian Baird started voting with Republicans on the war and spouting GOP talking points on television.

Baird could have plenty of company: 59 House Democrats voted in May against a bill that would have required President Bush to withdraw all troops from Iraq within six months. Meanwhile, 41 Democrats in the House and 16 in the Senate endorsed last month’s expansion of the administration’s authority to conduct warrantless surveillance of terrorism suspects-- a move that “capitulated to President Bush and politics of fear over wiretapping,” in MoveOn’s view.

If the membership were to approve the strategy, MoveOn would keep a close eye on how Democrats voted this fall on the next efforts to end the war, while gauging their vulnerability in a primary challenge.

Interestingly, one of the worst of the rogue Democrats, Dan Lipinski (IL-03), who is already being challenged by Blue America-backed Mark Pera, suddenly has 3 primary opponents. Although dissatisfaction with Lipinski is very strong in his mixed surburban/Chicago district-- primarily because he voted more frequently with the GOP than almost any other Democrat in a solidly blue district-- three opponents is likely to strengthen his chances at re-election.

Today's Daily Southtown, the district's primary newspaper, pointed out how Lipinski is still working with Republicans to prolong Bush's hated war in Iraq.

Lipinski advocates keeping troops in Iraq but slowly altering their mission to patrolling the country's borders and training military personnel.

Lipinski and U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-10th), of Highland Park, have joined forces on a House resolution demanding implementation of the Iraq Study Group Report, which was released in December.

...Yet Lipinski and Kirk, who acknowledge the Bush Administration made mistakes that undermined public support for the war, want people to believe their government now will tell the truth and make no more mistakes.

Having listened for more than an hour to Lipinski, Kirk and the two ambassadors detail the multiple and massive failings of the U.S. war in Iraq, I find it difficult to place continued faith in our ability to do the right thing.

Kirk said what most interests him is doing the right thing by our troops who continue to serve in Iraq.
I would agree.

And I think the right thing to do is to bring them home now.

Lipinksi and Kirk, a Democrat and a Republican, each has a disgraceful record on Iraq and each has earned his constituents' contempt and defeat at the polls. The Man most likely to hold Lipinski accountable is Mark Pera and he has quite a bit to say about the Lipinski-Kirk Axis. Mark, like most Americans, sees that the Bush-Lipinski-Kirk strategy for prolonging the war is far too little and far too late. He is adamant that the U.S. should start bringing our troops home in a safe and orderly fashion MUCH sooner than Lipinski and Bush are offering.

This was a war of choice not necessity. Now America is caught in a terrible quagmire, a situation brought upon us by a President who never listened and elected officials like Congressman Lipinski, who, for political reasons, blindly supported the President's misguided actions... It's troubling that legislators like Congressman Lipinski say they recognize the gross errors they've made yet still advocate for continuation of this war for another five years. How many of America's sons and daughters, mothers and fathers will make the ultimate sacrifice because of those in government and Congress who refuse to face reality.

We need a policy that specifically outlines troop withdrawal now, not in three or five years. The people there in Iraq want us out now. It is a false premise that we can correct the political situation. A historical perspective shows us the warring factions there are unlikely to ever reach an accord with each other. We are immersed in a civil war for which there is no military solution.

The authors of this national and international disaster, from Bush and Cheney down to Kirk and Lipinski need to go. They are not part of the solution; they are the problem. Please consider helping Mark Pera to get rid of one egregious Bush Dog.

THERE IS AN ANTIDOTE TO THE TREACHERY OF THE BRIAN BAIRD TYPE BUSH ENABLERS-- MEET JAN SCHAKOWSKY... JUST BACK FROM IRAQ

Jan Schakowsky, not a Bush-Cheney-Baird Democrat

Right-wing pundits and propaganda hacks like Tony Blankley have been having a field day laughing at congressional Democrats as useful idiots like Brian Baird coming marching back from their little trips to the Greed Zone singing the praises of future Republican politician David Petraeus and convinced that endless war in the answer to any fears they harbor about re-election. Although southwest Washington Congressman Brian Baird showed what he was made of a few weeks ago when he was one of only 4 Democrats to vote with the Republicans against mandating rest time for U.S. troops before redeployment to the front, undiscerning observers have characterized his predictable "Stay the Course" rhetoric following a quickie in the Greed Zone like this:

Baird opposed the war against Iraq from the get-go but believes that since the US went ahead and attacked anyway, it should persist and be successful. He believes that the surge might be paying off, at least to a degree, and that-- therefore-- the troops should not be withdrawn soon.

Let's forget for a moment that Baird certainly did not oppose the war from the get-go and that he was one of many Democrats who refused to take a strong stand against Bush's Iraq agenda right from the very first roll call regarding Iraq. And let's not even question the motives of people who try passing these lies off as fact and instead let's just chalk that up to laziness, ignorance or even misinterpretation of the voting record.

Instead, let's keep in mind that it isn't only reflexive reactionaries like Brian Baird reporting from a bit of Iraq, nor even only confused and conflicted Democratic novices like Jerry McNerney, even though the rightist pundits will only highlight them. Today's Washington Post features what real Democrats who can keep a clear head in Iraq say when they get back. Chicago Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, who unlike Baird, actually has a voting record that shows she really did oppose Bush's war "from the get-go," just came back from a fact-finding mission with unshaken resolve to extricate America from this Bush-Cheney-NeoCon mess.

Jan was a little shaken when Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih told her congressional delegation, "There's not going to be political reconciliation by this September; there's not going to be political reconciliation by next September" and she was a little shaken when General BetrayUs concluded his slick GOP PowerPoint presentation with an announcement that "it could take another decade before real stability is at hand." (In case there are any Republicans who have accidentally wandered over to DWT today, a decade is 10 years.)

The trip gave Schakowsky a good look at the challenge that Democrats face next month, when Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker travel to Washington to testify before Congress, presumably with similar charts and arguments that the U.S. military is making strides in Iraq, and that withdrawal dates would be reckless and wrong.

The lack of political progress among Iraq's rival factions and Petraeus's estimate of the time needed to stabilize the nation left Schakowsky all the more convinced that Democrats must force Bush to begin bringing troops home.

"This is not the structure that's going to say, 'Why? Why are we here? What are we really accomplishing here?' The mission is to take down the bad guys, to establish order," she said of her sessions with Petraeus and other military leaders. The meetings "made me feel more determined that the policy is going to have to be set in Washington, that the Congress is going to have to exert its will here to end this war."

While the Republican Noise Machine builds up BetrayUs as the strong man to eventually challenge President Hillary and drooling idiots like Baird fall into line like they always do, a few hearty souls like Schakowsky recognize exactly what Petraeus really is and what he's trying to do. "I felt that was a stretch and really part of a PR strategy-- just like the PR strategy that initially led up to the war in the first place," Schakowsky told the Post once she was back in Chicago. Petraeus, she said, "acknowledged that if the policymakers decide that we need to withdraw, that, you know, that's what he would have to do. But he felt that in order to win, we'd have to be there nine or 10 years."

Darcy Burner's call to arms-- to elect more and better Democrats-- is at the heart of how progressives must respond to the latest Bush-BetrayUs propaganda surge. Brian Baird isn't the only moron suckered into this, but that is where the "better Democrats" part comes in. Enough of the weak and ineffective enablers in the Democratic Party, your John Barrows, Melissa Beans, Chris Carneys, Jim Costas, Henry Cuellars, Dan Lipinskis, Jim Coopers, Mike Rosses, John Tanners and Al Wynns. It's time progressives started to understand that primaries are every bit as important as the general election-- at least they are if you're serious about ending Bush's heinous policies at home and abroad.

Jan knows that there are some who will fall for or become confused by the slick Republican presentations. "If you took the briefings at their face value, without context, without bringing anything to it-- clearly they were trying to present that positive spin, and that's what [other lawmakers] took away from it." We need more lawmakers like Jan and less like Brian Baird.

Among the crucial primaries coming up for House seats:
- Progressive stalwart incumbent Steve Cohen is being viciously challenged by the reactionary DLC/Harold Ford machine in Memphis. We should support Cohen to the hilt; he's earned it.
- Progressive challengers Donna Edwards (MD-04), Randi Scheuer (IL-08) and Mark Pera (IL-03) are seeking to replace disloyal Bush-Democrats Al Wynn, Melissa Bean and Dan Lipinski.
-Progressive front runners Darcy Burner (WA-08), John Laesch (IL-14), Angie Paccione (CO-04), and Victoria Wulsin (OH-02) are being opposed by opportunists and Bush-Democrats. You'll find most of these progressives on the Blue America page-- and the ones that aren't there yet, will be soon. Please help-- for all of our sakes. And remember Darcy's words: "MORE AND BETTER DEMOCRATS."


UPDATE: GENERAL PAUL EATON EXPLAINS WHY ELECTING DARCY BURNER IS PART OF THE SOLUTION TO THE IRAQ PROBLEM

SOME DEMOCRATS TRAVEL TO THE GREED ZONE AND LOSE SIGHT OF THE BALL

If you believe Bush was fairly elected in 2000, you may also believe his puppet government in Iraq is also a democracy. But you'd be wrong. Today two haughty Inside-the-Beltway establishmentarians, one from each of the Insider political parties-- the terrible one and the less terrible one-- returned from Iraq demanding we exchange Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki for a better model. The Democratic Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the ranking Republican on the committee, John Warner spent a few minutes in the Greed Zone, and came back warning that "in the view of politicians in Washington, and of the American people, 'time has run out' on attempts to forge a political consensus in Baghdad."

Does this mean that Levin and Warner have finally come to their senses and are demanding the impeachments of Cheney and Bush? Not on your life! "Mr. Levin said that in his view, the political stalemate in Iraq could be attributed to Mr. Maliki and other senior Iraqi officials who were unable to operate independently of religious and sectarian leaders. 'I’ve concluded that this is a government which cannot, is unable to, achieve a political settlement,' Mr. Levin said. 'It is too bound to its own sectarian roots, and it is too tied to forces in Iraq which do not yield themselves to compromise.'”
Levin, from Tel Aviv no less, called on the Iraqi Parliament to oust Maliki. His choice of venues alone was sure to shore up support for Maliki from the ridiculous government of the Greed Zone.

Warner stopped short of calling for Maliki's ouster but he agreed with Levin the Rove's talking points about Iraq make sense.

“While we believe that the ‘surge’ is having measurable results, and has provided a degree of ‘breathing space’ for Iraqi politicians to make the political compromises which are essential for a political solution in Iraq, we are not optimistic about the prospects for those compromises,” the joint statement said.

Tomorrow's Washington Post calls Levin's statement "the most forceful call for leadership change in Iraq from a U.S. elected official."

These congressional fact finding missions to the Greed Zone are colossal wastes of money and energy and of no value whatsoever. Yesterday's report by 7 military men stationed in Iraq in the NY Times is worth more than what every damn senator has had to say since the start of this catastrophe. "The tours, carefully conducted by the Defense Department, generally include visits to the Green Zone for consultations with U.S. and Iraqi officials, trips to forward operating bases and joint security stations involved in Petraeus's new counterinsurgency program, and heavily guarded tours of open markets, often in Anbar province, where a U.S. alliance with Sunni sheiks has calmed the region."

A few easily fooled imbeciles like Washington Congressman Brian Baird have been impressed and have switched to the Cheney Coalition. He now says he will not vote for any future withdrawal timelines. "We are making real and tangible progress on the ground, for one," Baird said, "and if we withdraw, it could have a potentially catastrophic effect on the region." He seems to have forgotten that Bush's unprovoked war of aggression and occupation of the country has already had not a potentially catastrophic effect, but an actual one-- on the region and beyond. The citizens of southern Washington should through him the hell out of office. "Last Friday, Baird told the Olympian, a newspaper in his district, that he now believes the United States should stay in the country as long as necessary to ensure stability."

Similar reactions have come from a Republican in Democratic clothes, Tim Mahoney (FL), which was totally predictable even as Rahm Emanuel was strong-arming a real Democratic candidate, Dave Lutrin, out of the way so he could out Republican closet case Mark Foley and insert newly minted "Democrat" Mahoney in his place, where he would help Emanuel and Hoyer get better parking spots and bigger offices-- while voting his heart for the GOP agenda. Less predictable was the response from Jerry McNerney (CA), an actual Democrat who seems to have drunk the Kool Aid in Baghdad. We're waiting for a clarification from him.

Will the Iraq Campaign have to start running ads like this one against Democrats? I think so.

BRIAN BAIRD CONTEMPTUOUSLY DARES REAL DEMOCRATS IN WASHINGTON TO PRIMARY HIM

A few weeks ago I only knew vaguely who Brian Baird was. I found out because I was shocked to find his name on the very short list of Democratic congressmen who hate our troops. Baird, a Blue Dog hack from southwest Washington, joined 3 of the worst reactionaries in the House Democratic caucus-- Chris Carney (PA), Jim Marshall (GA) and Charlie Melancon (LA)-- to oppose mandatory rest times for troops in Iraq. Fortunately, the troop haters like Baird were defeated in the House. [Mitch McConnell, who has hated the Army ever since he was discharged for sodomy-- a fact he denies but will soon be proven-- is determined to inflict as much destruction on our fighting men and women as possible and swears he will filibuster the bill to death.]

Back to Baird, currently in his 5th term. His district spreads out on both sides of the 5 Freeway between Olympia and Vancouver (Washington). He's a Blue Dog and a member of the anti-worker/anti-consumer New Democratic Coalition (think Ellen Tauscher). He has a middle-of-the-road voting record over all, but he has been fairly supportive of the Bush Regime agenda in Iraq, voting for example, with the Republicans and against the Democrats on HR 2206, May 24's bill to fund the war without withdrawal deadlines; with the Republicans and against the Democrats on HR 6061 (the so-called "Secure Fence Act"); with the Republicans and against the Democrats on the circus known as the Flag Desecration Amendment; and with the Republicans and against the Democrats in making the Terri Schiavo dispute a federal case. In other words, he isn't exactly a Democrat you want to support or trust-- unless you're the right-wing propaganda rag, National Review. The stay the course crowd over there loves Brian Baird.

U.S. Rep. Brian Baird said Thursday that his recent trip to Iraq convinced him the military needs more time in the region, and that a hasty pullout would cause chaos that helps Iran and harms U.S. security...

• "One, I think we're making real progress."

• "Secondly, I think the consequences of pulling back precipitously would be potentially catastrophic for the Iraqi people themselves, to whom we have a tremendous responsibility … and in the long run chaotic for the region as a whole and for our own security."

Baird has drunk the GOP kool aide. He has abandoned the constituents of WA-03 and become so wrapped up in Inside the Beltway nonsense that he is no longer fit to represent the district. He's out spreading the gospel according to Cheney and encouraging the endless war proponents inside the Beltway, his only constituency.

CONGRESSIONALLY SPEAKING, WHO'S BEEN NAUGHTY? WHO'S BEEN NICE?

Photo of a truly wretched version of a fake Dem, from our pals at PhotoTune

As Congress prepared for their August recess, the leadership pushed to get a lot of bills passed. I guess that is supposed to keep voters' minds off the fact that the way, way overpaid legislators are going on the same vacations that the Iraqi parliamentarians have been so ruthlessly criticized for going on. Of course, listening to the mass media you would think that our senators and congressmen are headed home to their districts to get an earful of advice and opinion for their constituents. That may have been what happened in the early 1800s. But not lately. Can you imagine our brittle, elitist legislators-- of either party-- actually giving a damn about what we the people think about the "complicated" issues they deal with? Not likely.

I can't even get my congresscritter, a dependable liberal, to return a phone call.

Their system is imperfect but Progressive Punch rates every member of Congress and lists them from the most progressive-- Keith Ellison (D-MN), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Janice Schakowsky (D-IL)-- to the most reactionary-- Patrick McHenry (R-NC), Michele Bachman (R-MN), David Davis (R-TN), Doug Lamborn (R-CO), and Jim Jordan (R-OH). Since even the least reactionary Republican still scores a thoroughly rubber stamp voting record than even the very worst and most reactionary, Republican-like Democrats, I like to remind DWT readers just who the Democrats are who most frequently vote with Republicans on substantive issues. The roll call votes this week were instructive and I'll get to them in a moment. But on the overall, career scorecard the dirty dozen Democrats who regularly betray Democratic values and ideals are-- from bad to worst:

Tim Holden (PA)
John Barrow (GA)
Jim Matheson (UT)
Jim Marshall (GA)
John Tanner (TN)
Mike McIntyre (NC)
Allen Boyd (FL)
Ike Skelton (MO)
Dan Boren (OK)
Collin Peterson (MN)
Bud Cramer (AL)
Gene Taylor (MS)

The freshmen haven't had enough votes to descend to the depths some of them are clearly headed. So breaking out the half dozen worst newly elected freshmen, these are the ones who have been the biggest disappointments, the ones who replaced Republicans and then vote as though they are Republicans. Again, the order is from really, really, really bad to absolutely excruciatingly horrible:

Nick Lampson (TX, yes better than Tom DeLay but... not really worth the money)
Baron Hill (IN)
Brad Ellsworth (IN)
Joe Donnelly (IN)
Jason Altmire (PA)
and worst of all, Rahm Emanuel's future fence jumper Heath Shuler (NC)

And if you think it's unfair to include Baron Hill and Nick Lampson in the list of freshmen because the career scores include the years they were in Congress before they were elected again last year, take them off the list and stick in the equally execrable Chris Carney (PA) and Zach Space (OH).

Yesterday Steve Benen at the Carpetbagger Report took a look at how Boehner had managed to hold his miserable minority caucus together in the light of Democratic-sponsored bills this week that are widely-- very widely-- supported by the American people. I mean, who wants to vote against children's health care, against rest for weary fighting men in Iraq or for legalistic discrimination against workers? Apparently almost the entire GOP caucus. But like I've said before, there isn't a single Republican in any federal office worthy of a vote. Alas, there are more than a few Democrats whose unworthiness has also been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

This past week we looked at two of the three circumstances tackled by Steve when he looked at the Republicans. To recap, when it came to mandating rest times for U.S. troops in Iraq, 4 Democrats joined the Republicans to show that they don't only not support the troops but that they hate them and want them to die:

Chris Carney (PA)
Jim Marshall (GA)
Brian Baird (WA)
Charlie Melancon (LA)

And speaking of legislating death for Americans, fully ten reactionary Democrats joined the Republicans last week to try-- unsuccessfully-- to defeat a bill that would add 6 million needy children to a popular health insurance plan:

Dan Boren (OK)
Jim Cooper (TN)
Joe Donnelly (IN)
Brad Ellsworth (IN)
Bob Etheridge (NC)
Baron Hill (IN)
Jim Marshall (GA)
Mike McIntyre (NC)
Heath Shuler (NC)
Gene Taylor (MS)

We never got to the successful passage last week of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which extends the period in which workers can file pay-discrimination claims. Half a dozen of the most reactionary Republican-like Democrats showed their true colors to oppose this one:

Dan Boren (OK)
Allen Boyd (FL)
Nancy Boyda (KS)
Bud Cramer (AL)
Tim Mahoney (FL)
Nick Lampson (TX)

You notice any patterns? Any names that keep showing up again and again? Like Dan Boren or Jim Marshall, for example, who don't care if it's screwing soldiers or screwing children, they want everyone to know they're as bad as any Republican. There's another pattern. Do you ever get e-mails from the DCCC? They ask for money to help end the war in Iraq and to push the Democratic agenda. What they never tell you is that most of the Democrats who are working hardest to end the war and who are thoroughly behind progressive values don't need their money. Much of that money actually goes to foisting quasi-Republicans on us, so-called Democrats who vote with Republicans on all the crucially important matters. Oh, on the crucially important matters to us, not the crucially important matters to the Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer Insiders. To them there's only one really important vote-- the vote that determines which party leads the Congress at the beginning of the session. If some reactionary agrees to vote for the Democratic Speaker, that's all that matters because the Emanuels and Hoyers get their power and their perks and their access to the gigantic legal bribes that come with leadership positions.

When Blue America found that one of the candidates we raised money for last year had lied to us about how he would vote-- not once or twice or a dozen times, but consistently we asked for a discussion. Request denied. We then asked for our contributions back. Request ignored. Now we never endorse any candidate until they are told about our experience with reactionary and dishonest Democrat Chris Carney. We ask prospective Blue American endorsees to read the apology we made to the donors who contributed to his campaign under false pretenses. We're not finished with Congressman Carney either. The DCCC is collecting money to bolster his re-election bid. If you donate to the DCCC a part of that donation will go to Chris Carney's campaign so that he can continue voting with the Republicans against ending the occupation of Iraq and against the most basic Democratic values. Instead, please consider donating to Blue America candidates and to the Blue America PAC. If we get involved in PA-10 again, it won't be to get Chris Carney re-elected.